Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-07
Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 21 September 2022 14:19 UTC
Return-Path: <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC95C14F735; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J1CtRLGUBsrc; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE06DC1522A9; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com with SMTP id k2so6873739vsk.8; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=d/lS9UlF93wZEovdKIiEgE656cU4fqVpgdvJY+YPUvI=; b=j3qHNnUCQ19NRrfWNyqhcXJSIm5QGfkvB8gJAmSfqvu5M+c9iULOROU6HnDumRmfyK vw8F+pBnfNxT6MGnv8X5OU7BFWcMpJMFa/G36zjYVf0bGHb4xzqtbTuWSRsIvs3YYISn wZP3Z684x1YGA+k1hsOhNo57pQfCGT/9crQZeyQYxtedACHHVOJ7Cd6C4wISywe/aVA3 0aMVMwcpQV6av14AsfX4J1WSNWOia4MvJeeglACZAqJmMGWVrSN8YZJs03sRh/XtHnbg JLNPoAMrLhWnmSnTwHYdjSalHfE7WtUzwvs0llpiXMoxav31y4Kc3c8dYx/CQh4w0WFN 1tmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=d/lS9UlF93wZEovdKIiEgE656cU4fqVpgdvJY+YPUvI=; b=RfVG8ZHFI6WPEYy5mQ7IMyC5GeJ9ukDqEuqwPkhimEl/wLeqfOsWMupRFsmjx/nAve QuQ2+pgJtUo2DJjMH8YoYZigcxR/apegJoCPAhR1Vy2/hX5N9shysu9NnGkztOAAiCJr KUQ8PmI9Kkn5oL4n+vZaEcC15DxySYGa/Wqrb4qsFTgiuA1qEoQ76JiYimb/D8D3RRdt SSM0aFDiEhaELOdIL5wYyUUnCtbV8GxJazZUoAgr2mPtKyU3HPlUncw4QWXqises1FU1 qW/uTFYRpu1sM3TcOIziIBkHu9ZiIwp1MwSJYla5xcijfv/dK5Hc+CUzJnob4aPJfTt1 yQrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1yqTGj/M5SBaZp3Aaq+p0FLlSjXAP4vp9EUFk8/CNemq/eYphU tNwDz0GpGLbAPOQ29g1iemIc8gU4LTJkojLGfyY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7t+3oVNmTR4TQbfhzGJ1Z/m6BqUQqRU1b+fbgVrU4HcCGZMh+HCL2i0mk9z7UiF0DUmf2LJmPHL/W3sQaEAjE=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:c810:0:b0:39b:1ee0:fbfb with SMTP id u16-20020a67c810000000b0039b1ee0fbfbmr5019974vsk.34.1663769962689; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <166272822888.47659.4683365954813452330@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAH6gdPzwraD5jFst9ba74c0eRucA-wVHhLbXJsd=539Z2RMdtg@mail.gmail.com> <DB9PR08MB652429DA376E527D95EA41549C479@DB9PR08MB6524.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB9PR08MB652429DA376E527D95EA41549C479@DB9PR08MB6524.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 19:49:10 +0530
Message-ID: <CAH6gdPzfd7=FdUz3DivYi_NkzwL+W3QT88tLGtBAnRHpPc6TOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d395805e930a163"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/TpO0YYIoZhRtE6QqWXhM7Ng28yo>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-07
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:19:46 -0000
Hi Thomas, The updated version just posted includes the changes we discussed: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-08 Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 8:16 PM Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com> wrote: > Thank you Ketan. > > > > On 13/09/2022, 07:52, "Ketan Talaulikar" <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Thanks a lot for your detailed review and your suggestions. We've > incorporated all of those changes and they will reflect in the next update > of the document. > > > > Please check inline below for some responses. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 6:27 PM Thomas Fossati via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Thomas Fossati > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-reverse-metric-?? > Reviewer: Thomas Fossati > Review Date: 2022-09-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-20 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > This is a clear and easy to read document, thank you authors for the > great job. > > I only have a couple of very minor issues / clarifications. The tail of > my review consists of a bunch of typographic nits and one suggestion for > how to align the Contributors section to most recent interpretations of > the RFC Style Guide (RFC7322). > > > > KT> Thanks for catching that. The goal was to actually acknowledge Jay. We > will remove the contributors section and use the acknowledgement section > instead. > > > > > Major issues: none > > Minor issues: > > * It looks that the H and O flags are mutually exclusive? If so, I > think the fact should be made explicit. (This applies to both the > reverse and reverse TE metrics.) > > > > KT> Yes, they are de facto mutually exclusive - i.e., when the O flag is > set, the offset is added to the existing metric and therefore guaranteed to > be not lower than the existing metric. Therefore, when the O flag is set, > the H flag can be ignored and we will add this explicitly in the text. > > > > > * "If authentication is being used [...] then the Cryptographic > Authentication TLV [RFC5613] SHOULD also be used to protect the > contents of the LLS block." Please explain why this is not a MUST, > i.e., under which conditions it is OK to not authenticate the LLS > block. > > > > KT> RFC5613 indeed covers this already and so it is a MUST ... "when > authentication is used". > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 1., paragraph 1: > OLD: > Thus the configuration on R1 influences the traffic that it forwards > > NEW: > Thus, the configuration on R1 influences the traffic that it > forwards > > > Section 2.1., paragraph 2: > OLD: > when a large number of CE routers connect to a PE router, an > > NEW: > when many CE routers connect to a PE router, an > > > Section 2.1., paragraph 3: > OLD: > router to advertise the maximum metric for that link and also to > [...] > returns to using its provisioned metric for the link and also stops > > NEW: > router to advertise the maximum metric for that link and to > [...] > returns to using its provisioned metric for the link and stops > > > Section 2.2., paragraph 2: > OLD: > reverse metric to some or all of the R1-RN routers. When the R1-RN > > NEW: > reverse metric to some or all the R1-RN routers. When the R1-RN > > > Section 3., paragraph 1: > OLD: > This ensures that the RM signaling is scoped ONLY to each specific > [...] > Metric TLV in its Hello packets on the link as long as it needs its > [...] > > NEW: > This ensures that the RM signaling is scoped only to each specific > [...] > Metric TLV in its Hello packets on the link for as long as it needs > its [...] > > > Section 6., paragraph 4: > OLD: > instability in the network due to churn in their metric due to > signaling of RM: > > NEW: > instability in the network due to churn in their metric caused by > signaling of RM: > > > Section 6., paragraph 7: > OLD: > RM metric signaling based on the RM metric signaling initiated by > some other router. > > NEW: > RM metric signaling based on the RM metric signaling initiated by > some other routers. > > > Section 6., paragraph 10: > OLD: > (also refer to Section 7 for details on enablement of RM). The > rules [...] > > NEW: > (refer to Section 7 for details on enablement of RM). The rules > [...] > > Section 7., paragraph 5: > OLD: > For the use case in Section 2.1, it is RECOMMENDED that the network > operator limit the period of enablement of the reverse metric > > NEW: > For the use case in Section 2.1, it is RECOMMENDED that the network > operator limits the period of enablement of the reverse metric > > > Section 9., paragraph 1: > OLD: > This document allocates code points from Link Local Signalling TLV > Identifiers registry for the TLVs introduced by it as below. > > NEW: > This document allocates code points from the Link Local Signalling > TLV Identifiers registry for the introduced TLVs. > > > Regarding the Contributors section, I think BCP is to make it similar to > the Authors section, e.g.: > > Section 11., paragraph 1: > OLD: > Thanks to Jay Karthik for his contributions to the use cases and the > review of the solution. > > NEW: > Jay Karthik > Cisco Systems, Inc. > Email: jakarthi@cisco.com > > Jay contributed to the use cases and the review of the solution. > > > If you are using kramdown-rfc you can add this snippet after your > "author" block > > contributor: > - name: Jay Karthik > email: jakarthi@cisco.com > contribution: Jay contributed to the use cases and the review of the > solution. > > Otherwise (xml2rfc): > > <contact initials="J." surname="Karthik" fullname="Jay Karthik"> > <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization> > <address> > <email>jakarthi@cisco.com</email> > </address> > </contact> > <t> > Jay contributed to the use cases and the review of the solution. > </t> > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. >
- [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Thomas Fossati via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Thomas Fossati
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-… Thomas Fossati
- Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review… Lars Eggert